Quote:
Originally Posted by usuallee
Ummm, did I say that? No, I clearly did not. I merely indicated that I would not necessarily shed any tears if others felt that way about 40+ year old works, particularly if the creators are multi-billionaires and/or have been dead a half century.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?
|
Did I say that you did? You definitely implied that you had some sympathy ("wavered") for those that apparently do feel that way, so I
asked whether you did too.
But hey, don't let syntax get in the way of a good argument, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
[...cut for brevity only...]
This is one reason why I like to tie copyright terms to the publication of the work, not the life of the author. It makes it much easier to track things down.
|
Some good points. I quite like the idea of copyright tied publication of the work in theory, but copyright doesn't just apply to things that have been formally published (or even dated) and that complicates this option.
Things don't have to be in the public domain to provide fertilization and inspiration, they just have to be available - which is where I was suggesting that ebooks and print-on-demand (that make it easier to keep books available) were reducing the impact of this public interest argument.
I was not trying to suggest that record keeping in the past is improving (although in many cases it is, as historical documents get digitised etc.), but record keeping in more recent times has improved and is improving. Unless a change to copyright is going to be retrospective, then it is record keeping as it now exists that will be applicable to tracing works in the future.